Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Pauline authorship and Canon

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Pauline authorship and Canon
  • Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 18:26:11 -0500


George Goolde wrote:

> As common protestant tradition would have it, I think discovery means that
> there is a canon which God established and that every individual believer
> has the right and responsibility to recognize for him or her self what it
> is. I derive this from 2 Tim 2:15, c.f. 2 Tim 2:2 where Timothy and each
> one (by the extention in verse 2) is to cut a straight line through the
> word of truth. This makes both canonicity and interpretation an individual
> responsibility, rather than a group/church/tradition responsibility.
>
> And isn't this why we are all together wrestling with these issues, since
> we see a need to "recognize" the canon. Admitedly we do it differently.
> It is a choice privilege to agree to disagree agreeably. . . .
>

I am very pleased to see the level of civility that has been maintained in
this
exchange -- as well as this testimony that finding ways to disagree agreeably
is
something that gives pleasure.

But may I remind the participants that discussion of how any individual comes
to
recognize canonicity, however that term is defined, let alone whether
recognition of
canonicity is or is not an individual enterprise, or even whether there is
scriptural
(even Pauline scriptural) warrant for this, is not--at least as it is now
being
carried out-- a Pauline topic. In other words, the issues that "we are
wrestling with"
have now seemingly ceased to have any apparent attachment to the specified
subject
matter that is the List's stated focus.

If I recall correctly, the real issue was whether recognition by the early
Church of a
document purportedly from Paul as canonical rules out a simultaneous
recognition that
it was pseudonymous. What we should be focusing on is the truth or falsity of
the
hidden assumption (as well as the process of thought that leads to or
justifies the
assumption) that the Pastorals wouldn't have been accepted as canonical
*unless* they
really were written by Paul. And I'm somewhat dubious that even this is not a
red
herring.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page